This study discusses the effect of semi-supervised learning in combination with pretrained language models for data-to-text generation. It is not known whether semi-supervised learning is still helpful when a large-scale language model is also supplemented. This study aims to answer this question by comparing a data-to-text system only supplemented with a language model, to two data-to-text systems that are additionally enriched by a data augmentation or a pseudo-labeling semi-supervised learning approach. Results show that semi-supervised learning results in higher scores on diversity metrics. In terms of output quality, extending the training set of a data-to-text system with a language model using the pseudo-labeling approach did increase text quality scores, but the data augmentation approach yielded similar scores to the system without training set extension. These results indicate that semi-supervised learning approaches can bolster output quality and diversity, even when a language model is also present.

Supervised learning is a machine learning subset where a machine learning model is trained on labeled (inputs) data. As a result, the supervised model is capable of predicting further outcomes (outputs) as accurately as possible. The concept behind supervised learning can be explained from real-life scenarios such as a teacher tutoring a child about a new topic for the first time. For simplification, let's say that the teacher wants to teach the child to successfully identify the image of a cat and a dog. The teacher will start the tutoring process by continuously showing the child images of either a cat or a dog with the addition of having the teacher inform the child if the image is that of a dog or a cat.

The Mean-Teacher (MT) scheme is widely adopted in semi-supervised object detection (SSOD). In MT, the sparse pseudo labels, offered by the final predictions of the teacher (e.g., after Non Maximum Suppression (NMS) post-processing), are adopted for the dense supervision for the student via hand-crafted label assignment. However, the sparse-to-dense paradigm complicates the pipeline of SSOD, and simultaneously neglects the powerful direct, dense teacher supervision. In this paper, we attempt to directly leverage the dense guidance of teacher to supervise student training, i.e., the dense-to-dense paradigm. Specifically, we propose the Inverse NMS Clustering (INC) and Rank Matching (RM) to instantiate the dense supervision, without the widely used, conventional sparse pseudo labels. INC leads the student to group candidate boxes into clusters in NMS as the teacher does, which is implemented by learning grouping information revealed in NMS procedure of the teacher. After obtaining the same grouping scheme as the teacher via INC, the student further imitates the rank distribution of the teacher over clustered candidates through Rank Matching. With the proposed INC and RM, we integrate Dense Teacher Guidance into Semi-Supervised Object Detection (termed DTG-SSOD), successfully abandoning sparse pseudo labels and enabling more informative learning on unlabeled data. On COCO benchmark, our DTG-SSOD achieves state-of-the-art performance under various labelling ratios. For example, under 10% labelling ratio, DTG-SSOD improves the supervised baseline from 26.9 to 35.9 mAP, outperforming the previous best method Soft Teacher by 1.9 points.

This primer is an attempt to provide a detailed summary of the different facets of lifelong learning. We start with Chapter 2 which provides a high-level overview of lifelong learning systems. In this chapter, we discuss prominent scenarios in lifelong learning (Section 2.4), provide 8 Introduction a high-level organization of different lifelong learning approaches (Section 2.5), enumerate the desiderata for an ideal lifelong learning system (Section 2.6), discuss how lifelong learning is related to other learning paradigms (Section 2.7), describe common metrics used to evaluate lifelong learning systems (Section 2.8). This chapter is more useful for readers who are new to lifelong learning and want to get introduced to the field without focusing on specific approaches or benchmarks. The remaining chapters focus on specific aspects (either learning algorithms or benchmarks) and are more useful for readers who are looking for specific approaches or benchmarks. Chapter 3 focuses on regularization-based approaches that do not assume access to any data from previous tasks. Chapter 4 discusses memory-based approaches that typically use a replay buffer or an episodic memory to save subset of data across different tasks. Chapter 5 focuses on different architecture families (and their instantiations) that have been proposed for training lifelong learning systems. Following these different classes of learning algorithms, we discuss the commonly used evaluation benchmarks and metrics for lifelong learning (Chapter 6) and wrap up with a discussion of future challenges and important research directions in Chapter 7.

Machine learning is one of the fastest-growing fields in the current technological landscape and it refers to a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with the prediction of outcomes by imitating the way that humans learn and perceive things. When talking about the classification of machine learning, primarily two categories come to mind namely Supervised Learning and Unsupervised Learning. In the following article, I'll be discussing a median path between the two called Semi-Supervised Learning. The primary difference between supervised and unsupervised learning is the type of data used by the algorithms. Supervised learning works on labelled data while unsupervised learning works on grouping or classifying the data based on similarities or differences rather than labels.

In the field of machine learning, semi-supervised learning (SSL) occupies the middle ground, between supervised learning (in which all training examples are labeled) and unsupervised learning (in which no label data are given). Interest in SSL has increased in recent years, particularly because of application domains in which unlabeled data are plentiful, such as images, text, and bioinformatics. This first comprehensive overview of SSL presents state-of-the-art algorithms, a taxonomy of the field, selected applications, benchmark experiments, and perspectives on ongoing and future research.Semi-Supervised Learning first presents the key assumptions and ideas underlying the field: smoothness, cluster or low-density separation, manifold structure, and transduction. The core of the book is the presentation of SSL methods, organized according to algorithmic strategies. After an examination of generative models, the book describes algorithms that implement the low-density separation assumption, graph-based methods, and algorithms that perform two-step learning.

In the past few weeks, I've been doing research on Linear Regression in Data Science. This week, however, I wanted to change things up. We know a little bit about supervised learning methods and unsupervised learning methods, but we haven't spoken about a different type of learning: Reinforcement Learning.

The common research goal of self-supervised learning is to extract a general representation which an arbitrary downstream task would benefit from. In this work, we investigate music audio representation learned from different contrastive self-supervised learning schemes and empirically evaluate the embedded vectors on various music information retrieval (MIR) tasks where different levels of the music perception are concerned. We analyze the results to discuss the proper direction of contrastive learning strategies for different MIR tasks. We show that these representations convey a comprehensive information about the auditory characteristics of music in general, although each of the self-supervision strategies has its own effectiveness in certain aspect of information.

The vast majority of existing algorithms for unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) focus on adapting from a labeled source domain to an unlabeled target domain directly in a one-off way. Gradual domain adaptation (GDA), on the other hand, assumes a path of $(T-1)$ unlabeled intermediate domains bridging the source and target, and aims to provide better generalization in the target domain by leveraging the intermediate ones. Under certain assumptions, Kumar et al. (2020) proposed a simple algorithm, Gradual Self-Training, along with a generalization bound in the order of $e^{O(T)} \left(\varepsilon_0+O\left(\sqrt{log(T)/n}\right)\right)$ for the target domain error, where $\varepsilon_0$ is the source domain error and $n$ is the data size of each domain. Due to the exponential factor, this upper bound becomes vacuous when $T$ is only moderately large. In this work, we analyze gradual self-training under more general and relaxed assumptions, and prove a significantly improved generalization bound as $\varepsilon_0+ O \left(T\Delta + T/\sqrt{n}\right) + \widetilde{O}\left(1/\sqrt{nT}\right)$, where $\Delta$ is the average distributional distance between consecutive domains. Compared with the existing bound with an exponential dependency on $T$ as a multiplicative factor, our bound only depends on $T$ linearly and additively. Perhaps more interestingly, our result implies the existence of an optimal choice of $T$ that minimizes the generalization error, and it also naturally suggests an optimal way to construct the path of intermediate domains so as to minimize the accumulative path length $T\Delta$ between the source and target. To corroborate the implications of our theory, we examine gradual self-training on multiple semi-synthetic and real datasets, which confirms our findings. We believe our insights provide a path forward toward the design of future GDA algorithms.

Dame Jenny added: "For this particular wave we have some evidence there may be some slight reduction of the effectiveness of vaccines on variants, but they are still maintaining the majority of people, keeping them safe from severe disease and out of hospital."